Lauren brings us a solid case aginst confirming Alito. Make sure you read the entire caption.
Reader Interactions
101Comments
Comments are closed.
Trackbacks
-
[…] UPDATE: Someone at Balloon Juice doesn’t get the joke. It’s a shoddy cut-and-paste job from a campus newspaper. And rather amusing. […]
Doug
Talk about your conspiracies!
Geek, Esq.
Cafeteria Catholic.
SoCalJustice
OOPS. That’s bad.
[Because the Pope opposed the Death Penalty? Kidding :-)].
Seriously, though, when I was in law school, I went to a lecture (on the undergrad campus) by Justice Scalia on the topic of the role that Catholicism plays in jurisprudence.
From an AP article: Scalia Questions Catholic Anti-death Penalty Stance:
Lines
I have an agenda for Alito:
Justice. Justice for one, justice for all. Thats the only agenda a judge should ever have. Once you step into the court room, your agenda becomes that which is justice.
ppGaz
Profound, and yet oversimplified to the point of being annoyingly trite.
I like it!
Steve
There is a competing view.
Brian
One justice of the SC cannot do away with abortion. People like Lauren find comfort in their belief that the American people are too stupid to govern themselves on subjects like abortion, and that the courts must determine our lives, at least so long as they’re populated with intellectuals who think like Lauren.
Barbar
That’s a good one, Brian. “Govern themselves.” I like that.
Otto Man
I think you might be reading too much into that caption.
canuckistani
Now *that’s* separation of Church and State!
Lauren
Word.
SeesThroughIt
Yeah. Sorta like having a choice instead of the government taking it away from you. Ya know, governing yourself.
Anyway, the right-wing onanosphere will commence howls of “liberal media bias!” over this in 3…2…1….
Brian
Then tell me what I should be reading into it, Lauren? What questions do you want answers to, now that you’ve bothered to speak up?
Brian
Good for you. Was that worth the effort to post a comment on it?
Pooh
Does someone really need to explain to Brian why making abortion a political issue may lead to unfortunate results? I mean if you are going to tilt at strawpeople, don’t you want there to be at least some resemblance?
Brian
Who is making it political?
I have news for you, it was enshrined in polotics with Roe v. Wade.
What exactly are you arguing here? Rather than present snide comments and speak in moonbat code, speak clearly so a dialogue can occur. You folks never can seem to rise to the occasion.
Brian
polotics = politics
Barbar
Brian, like you I totally believe that the American people are smart enough to govern themselves on the issue of abortion.
See, if a woman is in a situation where she decides to have an abortion, I trust her. I think she is smart enough to make her own decision — to govern herself, if you will.
Not everyone agrees with us, of course. Some elitists feel that they can’t trust people to make the right decisions, and need to pass laws to restrict their freedom of choice.
Together, however, we can work to stop these idiots. Let’s do it buddy.
Otto Man
If that caption got Brian this incensed, I’m looking forward to his letter to the editor calling for Jay Leno’s resignation in the wake of this week’s stroll through the “funny” headlines his viewers send in.
I seriously have no idea what you’re upset about, Brian. Some newspaper accidentally included a line about JPII’s would-be assassin in a caption on Alito. It was odd, and Lauren posted it. John thought it was funny enough to link to.
What exactly has your panties in a wad?
John Cole
Brian- Tone it down a notch to ‘hostile,’ or maybe two notches to ‘excessively belligerent.’
Pooh
Erm, it was technically (or theoreitcally) removed from politics by Roe v. Wade, by why let facts get in the way of a good diatribe?
The Other Steve
Right! Which is why we should immediately overturn Roe v Wade, so the Government can ban abortion, because the people are too stupid to govern themselves.
Pooh
But, hey, since we disagree again, I’ve unhooked the jumper cables…
Brian
Well, Barbar, it seems like we’re on the same page. I am pro abortion, especially being the father of two daughters. I am sick of abortion being so politicized, especially in national debates. It is unnecessary in this day and age. Roe v. Wade has hopelessly politicized the topic, and given control over its narrative to the extremes of the political parties. This subject can, and should, go to the states so that elected representatives, and not the courts, can determine the best course locally. Same for gay marriage, and, dare I say, drug laws. The end of Roe, I think, would be a good thing for abortion by taking it to the center, where it can be argued reasonably, and where men, finally, maybe can get a voice in the matter.
The Other Steve
Roe didn’t politicize the topic. In fact it wasn’t even mentioned in national debates until the 1984 election, like 10 years after it had happened.
Why? Because the Republicans decided to politicize it to make it a wedge issue.
You sound an awful lot like the guy who was trying to convince me we need smaller Government by banning Gay marriage. Because expanding marriage until gaytitude, expands the size of government.
Barbar
So abortion will become less politicized when it is moved into the hands of politicians, and especially when its relevant laws will vary by state? Do you really believe that?
If abortion is taken to the “center” and “men finally get a voice in the matter,” what will change from what we have now? If a woman and a man disagree about whether or not she should get an abortion, who gets the final say?
And if abortion becomes illegal where you live, you’ll be perfectly happy with that, as long as some politicians made that decision, because things are less political that way?
You’ve got to be kidding me.
Lauren
Primarily, the joke. After that, nada.
Steve
But gay marriage IS an issue that is left to the states. Each state gets to decide how to define marriage, and pursuant to both DOMA and well-settled principles of judicial comity, no state’s decision impacts the decision of any other state. In spite of this, would anyone deny that the issue is hopelessly politicized?
Contrast this with an issue that used to be a hot topic, interracial marriage. Different states had different laws, some of them got rid of their prohibitions, others did not. Then one day the Supreme Court, in Loving v. Virginia, found a constitutional right to interracial marriage, and that was that. I imagine a lot of people were unhappy at the time, but looking around me today, I can’t find a lot of people who decry the unconscionable activism of Loving v. Virginia. The issue is settled for all time.
Maybe you really are pro-choice, Brian. But I think you are living in a fantasyland if you really think this would cease to be a major issue if Roe v. Wade were overturned, and that the pro-choice states and pro-life states would live together in perfect harmony.
You would have, at the state level, 50 bitter debates over the topic. And it is silly to think that once a law gets passed, one way or the other, that the issue goes away. The people who didn’t get their way will continue fighting tooth and nail for as long as it takes.
Nor will the issue disappear on the federal level, notwithstanding the widely held misapprehension that it would simply be returned to the states. Congress has passed abortion laws in the past (the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act being but one example), and the reversal of Roe v. Wade would leave it free to do so in the future. Whether or not Congress actually took action, people on both sides of the issue would continue to lobby Congress to pass a law in their favor. Candidates on both sides would campaign for office promising to do this or that with respect to abortion. There is no sense in which the issue would just go away.
Brian
Barbar,
I had a feeling you weren’t a serious person. Thanks for confirming it.
No, I am not kidding you with my comments. I believe that Roe has been a net loss for the abortion debate. Abortion will not go the way of back alleys and dirty hangers if Roe is reversed. Abortion ahs been “mainstreamed” if you will, but Americans might differ on it being legal for all 9 months of pregnancy. That’s why the Left wants to keep it in the courts, because, as you have demonstrated, they don’t believe that Americans agree with the activist position on abortion. It has to be supported with hard-line liberal politicians, activists, and judges, and never, ever to be trusted in the hands of elected representatives.
I respectfully disagree with that position. And I also think that opinion is moving in the direction of men having a say in an abortion. The woman’s place is secure on the matter, and it’s reasonable for the man to finally have a say. I know this is not popular with you, but maybe it can be discussed with reason. We’ll see.
Brian
John and Lauren,
I owe you a sincere apology.
Doug
I think it’s telling that Justice Ginsburg was up front about her opposition to government interference with a woman’s reproductive decisions. The Bush appointees just dance all around the question, refusing to just come out and say that they think the government should be able to interfere with these decisions.
That being said, I find the degree of attention paid to abortion during these hearings annoying. It’s an important issue, but it’s just one issue. There are a pile of other issues they should be asking about.
Brian
I know, and I want to keep it that way, in the hands of local voters. It may be politicized, but it is so locally. It may come up in presidential debates, but it is not anything that the election becomes a referrendum on. Same should be the case with SCOTUS nominations, and I would not want gay marriage legality decided nationally, by judicial fiat, in the SC. Here locally, in California, Ahnuld talked about giving the subject of gay marrige to the state court to decide. That’s where it should NOT be. We can decide this issue, if given the time to debate it.
Barbar
I’m not a serious person?
Do you even have any awareness of what Roe v. Wade says about abortions in the third trimester?
Do you realize that if Roe v. Wade were overturned today, abortion would be completely illegal in most states?
And once again, “men having a say” sounds nice and all, but WHAT DOES IT MEAN IN REALITY? Does it mean that husbands and wives should discuss these issues? You don’t think it happens now? Men not having a say only matters when there is serious disagreement between the man and the woman. In that case, who gets to decide? If it’s the woman, then you have the status quo and I don’t see why it bothers you so much. So therefore I conclude that you think that men should be able to overrule a woman’s desire to have an abortion. And how freaking creepy is that? Is that what really bothers you about the “radical left” in this country, that it forces men who want to have babies to find women who share that desire? Good God.
Barbar
And you say that abortion has been “mainstreamed,” but in South Dakota there isn’t a single abortion doctor. In Mississippi I believe there might be one clinic left. But yeah Brian, you’re a big believer in freedom and the right to choose, you just worry about men not having enough of a say and evil conniving women running off and being irresponsible.
Pooh
Brain,
What are you talking about? Seriously, I’m asking. Your most recent posts do not demonstrate an understanding that conforms with what we hear in the reality-based community like to call “truth”. But it is full of truthiness, so full marks there.
Steve
If you don’t think gay marriage was an issue in the last presidential election, you must have been out of the country or something.
I can’t imagine that you seriously believe there are no states that would criminalize abortion if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
I very much doubt, Brian, that you are pro-choice as you claim, particularly since you are a noted purveyor of GOP talking points in every other discussion on this blog. I think you have this fantasy that if you pretend to be pro-choice, and you “reassure” us that nothing bad will happen if Roe v. Wade is overturned, somehow us crazy moonbats will believe you and stop caring about the issue.
I don’t know a single person who insists on an absolute right to abortion right up until the moment the baby gets delivered. That’s an absurd strawman. What I do care about is that if a woman is 6 months pregnant and something goes terribly wrong with the pregnancy, and she needs to have an abortion for health reasons, the state shouldn’t be sticking its nose into the medical decision. What I do care about is that if a woman has a miscarriage, she shouldn’t be forced to carry the dead fetus around for a week because the hospital won’t do a D&C until they get an official death certificate lest they get in legal trouble. What I do care about is that if a 14 year old girl gets pregnant from her father, grandma ought to be able to take her to get an abortion without the government deciding, Schiavo-like, that they know what is best for this family.
As for the theoretical case where a woman decides she wants an abortion at 37 weeks because she doesn’t want to have to cancel her nail appointment for next Saturday, I find that disgusting, and of course that’s not the right I’m fighting for. Just because I don’t want the government deciding what is a good reason for an abortion and what is a bad reason doesn’t mean I feel there are no bad reasons. But I don’t think crazy examples like this one are reflective of reality in any sense.
The Other Steve
This is probably the most obnoxious, stupid arrogant, elitist statement I’ve seen today.
In a loving relationship, a man has a say. The woman is going to say “What should we do?”… notice the “we”.
However if the relationship is disfunctional and the woman cannot rely upon the man, then it is up to her and her alone to decide what she’s going to do.
No law is going to change that, nor should it.
If you don’t like that, then keep your zipper up or use a rubber. It’s the easiest way for you to be certain you won’t have a problem here.
I do not understand why this is so fucking difficult for men to grasp. Instead we get all this bullshit like what you just posted. And it is bullshit. It’s not about having a say… You want fucking control and that’s just bullshit.
When men can carry a baby to term, they will get a say.
Barbar
It has to be supported with hard-line liberal politicians, activists, and judges, and never, ever to be trusted in the hands of elected representatives.
What about trusting decision-makers to make their own decisions? Oh no, people need the government to decide things for them, because they’re helpless without it. The government knows best. I’m sick of nanny-state loonies like you. Let’s take politics out of the equation and trust the American people to do what’s right. Have a problem with that?
(And yeah, I know I’m getting awfully riled up about someone who can’t even be honest about his beliefs, but whatever.)
Brian
Re men and their role in the abortion debate, we need to understand that there are 3 parties in the decision: woman, man, and child. It is not necessrily a woman’s prerogative only.
Rather than listen to a male’s perspective, which you clearly abhor, I’ll allow a woman to make the case. I’ve read posts from women like her, so I understand that there’s more of a willingness to take the abortion debate to another level.
How it all works out, and what it all means is not an easy question to answer. But I do know that I want citizens working this out, and not courts. Your vociferous response to my even suggesting men have a say is eveidence of how politicized abortion has become.
Pooh
Brian, are you channeling Ann Althouse today?
Brian
Barbar, I’m not sure where you’re coming from. When I stated what you quoted about “hard-line liberal politicians”, I was saying the that is how the LEFT sees it. They only want activists and courts, primarily, deciding these contentious issues, when the issues should be decided outside this arena.
Pooh, you need to show me what you’re so confused by.
Other Steve, GET A GRIP ON YOURSELF.
The Other Steve
The man has very important input in the debate. He can say “I’ll support the child”, or “I’m sorry darling, but I’m leaving town. See ya on the flipside!”. That’s input data for the woman’s decision on what to do.
To take your point all the way, you seem to be arguing that a man ought to be able to decide that he doesn’t want to pay child support, and therefore she should have an abortion? Frankly, I find that proposal flat out disgusting.
That’s right, because you know why?
*I HATE MEN!*
Yes, you heard it here first. A guy named Steve absolutely positively cannot stand the opinions of men.
No you don’t. The decision is *RIGHT NOW* in the hands of citizens.
If you don’t want an Abortion, *THEN DON’T HAVE ONE!*
Only because you’re being purposefully obtuse.
Brian
Pooh, I don’t care much for Ann, so I don’t read her, nor do I channel her.
Steve
Uh, if Roe v. Wade is upheld, citizens will continue to have a say in abortion – the citizens who are having the baby. I want my family planning to be between me and my wife, not subject to majority vote.
I don’t see a lot of men in “normal” relationship being excluded from the decision of whether or not to have a baby.
I imagine there are men who get a girl pregnant from a one-night stand and say “hey, I’d like a chance to be a father to that baby.” And maybe they’ll get included in that decision and maybe they won’t, and that’s an issue. But there are also plenty of men who get a girl pregnant in a one-night stand and are awfully glad they’re not the one stuck with the consequences, so overall, I’d have to say there are plusses and minuses to being a man.
I think it’s normal to want a say in the decision, I think it’s normal to GET a say in the decision, but at the end of the day I certainly don’t agree with the government making a law about how these decisions are made, any more than I think the government should be able to decide how many kids you have.
Barbar
But I do know that I want citizens working this out, and not courts.
Bullshit. You want politicians and legislatures working this out, not “citizens”. Stop lying.
How it all works out, and what it all means is not an easy question to answer.
Oh wow, what a great response. The vociferousness is related to the full of crap your posts are, not how “politicized” the debate is (and once again, if you really gave a damn about abortion being politicized, YOU WOULDN’T BE CLAIMING THAT POLITICIANS SHOULD MAKE THESE DECISIONS. Stop lying.)
If a man and a woman disagree about having an abortion, what should the law say? This might be a complicated issue but the outcome is simple. Either the man decides, the woman decides, or someone else does. So why not answer it openly, instead of ducking behind “it’s complicated so let’s make a law about it.”
The Other Steve
Brian’s argument’s are pretty typical of the modern Republican.
Notice how he’s trying to reframe banning abortion into an argument for Liberty? It’s not that he wants to ban abortion, he wants to give people the option of banning abortion.
That’s largely what’s wrong with the Republican party today, they started reading Goebbels and instead of being honest with themselves and America, they decided to hide their true beliefs behind a wall of misdirection and propaganda talking points.
And Brian… I’ve got a firm grip on myself. I was just like you back in college, until I woke up to recognize true Liberty.
Ancient Purple
I can settle this right now. Illinois has a trigger law in place. If Roe v. Wade gets overturned, abortion in Illinois is instantly illegal, except for the preservation of the life of the mother.
So, if RvW is overturned on June 1st and you are raped on June 2nd……
Brian
How do you know I was talking to you? I wasn’t, in fact.
Read the post I linked to and try to expand your view a bit, will you, before you go off on me the way you are? It’s disrespectful, and I don’t appreciate it. Screaming at me is not exactly a way to get my attention.
Let’s take an example, shall we? I know a couple of men who have had women tell them that they were fixed, and yet they got pregnant from these men. In other words, they had lied about their potential for reproduction. They admitted as much after confirming they were pregnant. One of them tried to escape any responsibility for this child, and when the woman decided to keep it, a judge told him he would have to pay support. That’s for 18 years, you know? The other guy offered to pay support, but he didn’t believe he should have to, and neither do I, given the circumstances.
The Other Steve
Well, obviously… It goes to the courts then, doesn’t it?
But oh wait, Brian said he wanted people, not the courts deciding. OH MY BRAIN HURTS!
Anyway, I’m done here. It’s obvious that Brian cannot debate rationally, which is why his argument is spinning in little circles like a turd flushing down the toilet.
Barbar
OtherSteve,
Yup. Reminds me of debates with people who think that the South was fighting for freedom in the War of Northern Aggression.
Steve
I could always bring up the Kelo case, a classic example where conservatives demanded that the issue be settled by the courts because they didn’t “trust” citizens to make these decisions. Of course, in that case, they understand why it’s problematic to leave your property rights at the whim of the political process. Why don’t they get it when it comes to your uterus?
Luminous Estuary
I’ve often thought that support for abortion was more prevalent amongst the middle class than it is in the poorer segments of society because of the material expectations entertained by the supposedly more fortunate. Middle class people often delay having children because they feel they need to have certain sets of material accomplishments in place before procreating. A house, suitable automobiles, a career capable of sustaining a family, all of these must be in place before considering having children.
Poor people, on the other hand, largely entertain no illusions about being able to acquire these trappings of respectability, and therefore just have kids and let God provide the rest. The company of others like them being solace for not being able to afford, let’s say, a Lexus.
Which, if you think about it, is actually quite a civil rights triumph. With the middle class effectively winnowing itself from the national gene pool in order to achieve its material ends, the poorer classes have come to exert a greater force in the country as a whole by the sheer percentage increase in their numbers.
For that reason alone abortion should remain legal and accesible.
Brian
Politicians and legislatures are chosen by citizens, in case you didn’t know. Just like the president is elected by citizens to nominate justices to the Supreme Court.
Illinois would update its laws if Roe were overturned. Right now, it doesn’t have to, because it relies on Roe to take the lead. We should not keep in place a law in order to protect someone who might get raped between Roe getting reversed and a new Illinois law being approved.
Citizens do have a say now in the abortion debate, but my problem with Roe (what else should I pin it on, because Roe is always the reference point, is it not?) is that the subject of abortion dominates political discourse on a national level, at the expense of other topics like the economy, national defense, foreign relations, etc. In other words, at the expense of more important issues.
Fledermaus
Barbar, you need to get a job at the DNC, this is a way better slogan than “Together we can to better”
Krista
Um, no. That’s precisely what we don’t want. When it comes to contentious, incredibly personal issues like whether or not to have a baby, or whether or not we can marry someone, we want the courts to stay the hell out of it, and let us make our own decisions. What a lot of right-wingers seem to fail to recognize, is that just because abortion is legal, and gay marriage is legal, not everybody will choose those options. But if you legalize the options, then you are leaving the freedom of choice in the hands of the individual, which is true liberty.
Brian
How exactly does the man decide? What does he decide?
Pooh
Damnit, Other Steve, a perfectly good flame war and you had to Godwin it…Brian, as to my confusion.
Well first is your faux-libertarian “let people decide for themselves” business. As has been pointed out, that’s where we are now.
Gay marriage not being nationally politicized? Did you not pay attention during the ’04 campaign?
Men having a ‘role’ in the decision? What does this mean? Notification? Consent? Veto? Our Inherent Unitary Executive Reproductive powers?
Lastly, I asked about Althouse because you have pulled the classic AA move – stake out a controversial position while claiming the centerline, and than calling out those who disagree are partisan activists. So, rhetorically well played, not that that gets us anywhere outside of debate club.
Barbar
How exactly does the man decide? What does he decide?
Are you really having that hard of a time keeping up? That was a question for you to answer — WHO DECIDES. You haven’t been able to answer it.
By the status quo, the answer is generally THE WOMAN DECIDES. You have a problem with that, you should come up with your own answer.
Once again, your claim that overturning Roe will de-politicize abortion DOESN’T MAKE ANY SENSE — because if you think we have a lot of debate now, THAT WILL ONLY INCREASE WHEN DEBATE CAN ACTUALLY LEAD TO CHANGES IN ABORTION LAW. So why are you lying when you say you really care about how over-politicized abortion has become?
Oh yeah, I already wrote that, and it didn’t sink in last time either. Whatever, I’m out of here.
Krista
Jesus Christ….chilling.
How certain are you of this? Think that the women of Illinois would be comfortable betting their futures on your level of certainty?
We have no idea how long it would take for a new Illinois law to get approved (and that’s IF it gets approved). Big, big risk. Especially if the Illinois lawmakers feel as you do, that there are “more important” things to worry about.
Personally, I find it really offensive that all American women do not have the same rights under the law. It’s absurd and offensive.
And as far as your two acquaintances that got taken in by supposedly “fixed” women (nice term, btw), yes, stuff like that is going to happen upon occasion. No matter what laws are made and how things are arranged, SOMEONE’s going to get screwed over. That’s life. But you have to choose the option that will allow for the least damaging repercussions for the fewest number of people. And something tells me that there are a lot more cases of rape, incest, and contraceptive failure than there are of baby-hungry women fooling men into being unwitting sperm donors.
Brian
Krista,
Then you surely would argue in favor of this being put to the states to make legal, and eliminate Roe so that our national politics can return to more important national topics. It can be made legal in each state, and each state can place its own limitations where its citizens see fit. Do you like each and every politcian and jurist being put to the abortion test? Is it necessary?
I’m with you on personal choice, and all that. I’m probably more libertarian in these respects than you think. But, I am trying to show where Roe has not been good for our political discourse, and why it should be considered for being overturned. That’s all. I don’t have the power to do it, so don’t get so damn riled up about my words, folks.
If Roe did not have such a polluting influence on our politics, I’d say keep it where it is. But I can’t help but think that even the Democrats would like it to go away as a constant political issue, when it doesn’t have to be. The battle has been fought.
Steve
Being a man is still a pretty good gig in America. It used to be that a guy could knock a girl up and get away with no strings attached. With the advent of modern child support laws, it may seem that he has it rough, but he’s still not stuck with the burden of raising a kid unless he wants to be. He can get out of it simply by writing a check, whereas the mother has to sacrifice her time and perhaps her education or career to focus on raising the child.
There are, indeed, some absurd cases where the guy really gets screwed on child support. These seem to be issues with our child support laws, though, not really having anything to do with abortion. After all, surely no one is contending that the father ought to be able to force the mother to get an abortion because he doesn’t think he should have to pay support.
At the end of the day, guys still get the better deal, and there’s no way around that.
Barbar
OK I’m sorry just one more comment.
Brian wrote:
my problem with Roe (what else should I pin it on, because Roe is always the reference point, is it not?) is that the subject of abortion dominates political discourse on a national level, at the expense of other topics like the economy, national defense, foreign relations, etc. In other words, at the expense of more important issues.
and then a little later he writes:
Then you surely would argue in favor of this being put to the states to make legal, and eliminate Roe
So even though he thinks that abortion debates take up too much of our discourse, he wants to replace Roe v. Wade with FIFTY different state laws, even though the desired net effect will be nothing substantive.
Pooh
Brian, something tells me that she would surely disagree with everything about this ‘graf save for your use of punctuation. Which is first rate, granted.
See my above post about my confusion re: your concept of reality.
Brian
I did not say that. I said that it would be de-politicized nationally. I don’t want presidents and SCOTUS nominees to be a referrendum on abortion. We have bigger fish to fry.
Krista, I don’t think decisions should be made on the “what if”. If that were our criteria, no decisions would be made, no laws written, because, like physics, for every action, there’s a reaction. Also referred to as consequences, or “being screwed over”, as you like to say it (nice term, btw).
I want women to have the same rights as citizens, not as women. No special dispensations otherwise. I don’t know many women who tell me that they live in fear of rape or incest. That is a straw man (or is it straw woman?) to strike down debate, and it’s tiresome.
Ancient Purple
Perhaps, but how long with that take. If you had a divided state government in Illinois at the time and the Governor was pro-life and only a slim majority of the state legislature voted to update the laws to provide abortion protections, it could take years to get the laws updated.
Now, I know that some will say that women could simply go to another state that allowed abortions, but that would mean you are all but keeping that option closed to poor women and there is no guarantee that a law would be created making it a felony for a citizen of state X to get an abortion in another state.
Even in Arizona, there has always been scuttlebutt amongst the right-wingers in the state house that they would do all they could to stop women from going to California for abortions if RvW was overturned.
Brian
That misses the point. The “choice” is not his to make.
Brian
You make a valid point here. Very valid. But, I will have to wait till later to answer, as I have to log off for now.
Have a good evening, everyone.
Sojourner
I don’t want the same idiots who continue to support this president to make decisions about my body.
It don’t get any simpler than that.
Steve
No, it doesn’t miss the point. What I said was that overall, if you consider the good and the bad, the man still gets a better deal overall.
As one of my law professors used to say, it’s all about whose ox is being gored. Society can create all kinds of problems for other people and gee, that’s a shame. But all of a sudden, when it’s you or people like you who are being affected, hey look at the injustice of it all!
There are no perfect answers, and there’s not going to be a simple solution when two people want very different things for one baby. On the other hand, the fact that a family is having problems dealing with a very difficult issue is not a reason why the government, or a majority of voters, needs to step in and make the decision for them.
In Brian’s imaginary dream world, where Roe v. Wade is overturned, all 50 states legalize abortion, and it becomes a minor issue like free parking meters on Sunday, I am pretty confident this exact same problem will still exist.
Krista
Sojourner – well put.
No, Brian. I am absolutely NOT in favor of putting it to the individual states. I am in favor of putting it to the individual person.
Your argument seems to assume that each state’s lawmakers and individuals are in perfect accord. What about pro-choice people living in a state whose legislators are anti-choice?
I do not think that any politicians (federal, state, municipal, school frickin’ council,) have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body.
And I realize that there are other important issues to be discussed at a federal level. But look at the bigger picture. This is about telling half of your country’s populace that they do (or do not) have freedom over their own bodies. That’s a huge human rights issue. And I think it does need to stay in the spotlight.
Krista
The punctuation was lovely, btw.
And if women are to have the same rights as citizens, then control over their own person would be fairly high up on that list, no? And you may not know too many women who tell you that they live in fear of rape or incest, but it isn’t exactly a common discussion topic. I don’t personally live in fear of incest or rape, but my heart (and my sympathetic rage) goes out towards any woman who has been forced to bear a child against her will, especially if that child was conceived out of an act of violence and anger.
There’s not much that riles me, but rape survivors being denied choices, such as emergency contraception or safe abortion? Oh, you better believe that burns my ass.
SeesThroughIt
Well, I don’t know how many of them fail to realize this and how many of them know it’s not true but prey on this line of thinking anyway. Just about every ardent right-winger immediately conflates “the legal option to have an abortion” with “mandatory abortions for everybody!” because it’s much easier to sell the outrage that way. They’ll never listen to reason because of this, which is pretty sad, as I can’t imagine there are many people who like abortion–which puts both pro- and anti-choice people on common ground, by the way.
Abortion and gay marriage are more or less the same thing for right-wingers: they don’t like these things, and they want their feelings codified into law as much as possible. They don’t want to grant an inch of ground in these issues, which means pointing out what you pointed out above, Krista, goes in one ear and right out the other. To them, if you think abortion should be legal, then clearly you want everybody to have one. If you think gay marriage should be legal, then you are part of the evil “gay agenda,” which not a single right-winger has ever defined but sure seems to scare the hell out of a lot of stupid, stupid people.
Doug
It’s kind of silly to say that a man deserves an equal say in whether a woman bears a child. Nature made it so the reproductive process occurs in the woman’s body. She doesn’t get an “equal say” in which partner is going to host the developing fetus. It’s the woman’s body being used as an incubator, so she gets to make the decisions. Life’s not fair. Tough noogies for the guy.
Sojourner
The hypocrisy of the anti-choice crowd fascinates me. They insist that the kid be born but forget about using tax dollars to ensure that the kid has a shot at a healthy and safe childhood.
Bizarre.
Krista
SeesThroughIt – well, it might go in one ear and out the other of the hardcores, but we still have to keep making these points, and make them loudly. No way in hell should they be the only voice being heard. Nuh-uh. It is incredibly frustrating, though. It’s not like the debate is “Nobody should get abortions” vs. “Everybody should get abortions”. I mean, c’mon!
Sojourner – bizarre? More like “infuriating”. You have no idea how much this pisses me off. Deny women access to birth control, either because they can’t afford it, or because their holy-roller judgemental pharmacist is allowed to withhold it. Deny them access to emergency contraception, so that if they ARE using birth control, and it fails, they have no backup. Deny them safe, legal abortions, so they’re forced to carry the baby to term. And then deny them the social safety net so as to be able to give that child a good education, good healthcare, and a safe place to live.
Evil. Evil. Evil. There is no other word for the people responsible for that. In their world, only wealthy, married, right-wing Christians should have babies (and keep pumping ’em out until the woman’s uterus gives out altogether), and everybody else should just keep their heathen, fag-loving, welfare-collecting, unpatriotic liberal legs the fuck closed.
Barbar
On one hand, you have state rights.
On the other hand, you have individual rights.
Gee, that’s a tough one. Unless you’re speaking in code, of course. This is nothing new in the history of American politics.
The Other Steve
I’ve decided to become a Republican and fight for a restoration of the Volstead Act!
Hell, I’m even from Minnesota.
Pooh
Other Steve,
Prohibition good. No, really…
Laura
What a sheltered world you must live in. When I was a sophomore in college, my roommate was raped by a stranger. Even more common is aquaintance rape, especially among young adults. And the drunk bastard who intimidates a woman into having sex doesn’t deserve any part of the decision about whether or not she has an abortion. And incest? I GUARANTEE you know women who have been molested by their fathers. And if they’re like a lot of victims, they never even talked about it with their families, so they sure as hell aren’t going to tell you. But they’re probably still going home for dinners or for the holidays. They’re still pretending they’re a normal family. And they’re still at risk.
The only woman you need to worry about Brian is your wife or girlfriend. If you want a say in whether or not she has an abortion, I suggest you forge a relationship in which she feels she can talk with you about something so serious. What the rest of us do with our bodies? None of your damn business.
Brian
Man, you have all gone completely unhinged, and are putting the “Angry” in Angry Left.
I said that I am pro-choice, libertarian on topics like gay marriage/abortion/drugs, and favor equality for all citizens. But you don’t want to hear that. It’s more comforting for you to characterize me as an evil Republican baby killer who wants to control your womb!!!
Well, I am married, Laura, and I have two daughters. I also have many female friends who have no problem being honest with me about their views on men, women, abortion, children, rape, and incest. We all agree that we want to keep abortion legal, but we don’t live in fear of it being taken away. It is a battle that has been fought. We would rather our politics be about other things, that our politicians look for new, meaningful ways to argue than to continue a dialogue about an issue that has already been argued. Privacy and equality are a given, and should be considered fundamental in today’s age. Abortion as a political issue only stays alive at the extremes. You don’t want to have it removed from this arena because you don’t trust anyone and your identity, I suspect, is given meaning through some unfortunate belief that you’re a weakling in a man’s world, and need the courts to give you a warm nest of safety. Please don’t educate me on women because you think I am “sheltered”. It is condescending at best, and I don’t really need it. You have nothing to contribute.
I’ll leave you folks to your little anger-fest. I won’t bother bring any more light to your darkness. Your obviously quite comfortable in your world of fear that does not trust anything or anyone outside your bubble. It must be a sad way to live.
The Other Steve
Brian – Trust me… You’ve done nothing but illustrate what a buffoon you are.
Craig R.
Actually, since civil marriage is a *contract* it cannot be left up to the states.
the same way that recognition of civil marriage *now* is not left up to the states – if somebody gets married in a chapel on the Vegas Strip that mariage is still recognized in all the states, territories and pretectorates of our fine republic. (in this case, at least, what happens in Vegas does *not* stay in Vegas)
In a like vein, the *dissolution* os the marriage through civil divorce or annullment is recognized.
So, it will be with baited breath that I will be looking for the test cases that will come.
———-
And Brian — TGhere are indeed three entities involved – man, woman and government. There is no “child” until birth.
ANd there are only two involved in the decision on abortion — the woman and the government.
Laura
And you’re calling me condescending? Wow.
Women typically don’t talk to their male friends about how their daddy snuck into their room at night. Or how their college crush raped them. Considering you called rape and incest a straw man, I doubt all the women in your life have been as open with you as you think.
Why would you live in fear? The government isn’t trying to control what you do with your body. But I seriously doubt your female friends “all agree” with you on abortion, or anything else, for that matter (how boring, if they all did). When women can’t get the morning after pill in some cities in a blue state like California, it’s naive think choice over our bodies isn’t being taken away. Even if they haven’t had much influence on you, I would suspect some of your female friends recognize that.
I’m going to finish watching Lost. You can finish this debate with all your female friends who agree with you.
Steve
I don’t get where you’re going with this. Contracts are absolutely a question of state law. For example, whether a gambling debt is an enforceable contract varies from state to state.
It’s true that states tend to recognize marriages from other states, and countries, as a matter of comity. But the judicial system has always recognized an exception where the marriage violates the state’s fundamental public policy. For example, it’s perfectly legal if Pennsylvania decides to let you marry your sister, but no other state has to recognize the incestuous marriage if they deem it sufficiently offensive. And if the well-settled judicial doctrine isn’t good enough, DOMA also codifies this point into federal law.
Perry Como
Deadlocked government, not making laws. Hmmm. Good idea! Probably the best the libertarians can hope for.
Steve
Brian, I’m honestly amazed that you seem to believe abortion is this dead issue and that it would never be made illegal in any substantial way anywhere in the 50 states.
I think you never had the Terri Schiavo epiphany that folks like John Cole experienced, and I’m not sure what it will take to get you there. But to make the point: Yes, there really are people who want to use the power of government to control your most personal family decisions. And the real lesson of Schiavo: these people have a lot more political power than you seem to believe.
Perry Como
You are free to do what you want as long as it doesn’t offend me. It’s enshrined in some part of the Constitution, somehow related to the unenumerated powers of the Executive.
That’s why I think a breath of fresh air is needed in government. We need a party that is willing to openly sell policy to the highest bidder.
Vote Plutocratic in ’08!
Jim Allen
To get back to the original reason for this thread, I think that maybe we should check deeper into Alito’s background. Maybe he killed Vince Foster, too.
Just saying.
Krista
Brian, you’re damned right we’re angry. And I’m not characterizing YOU as being an evil Republican who wants to control my womb. However, I AM characterizing you as having your head in the sand about this. Unfortunately, you’ve got lots of company. A lot of younger women do not stand up for this right beccause (like you), they do not feel that this right is threatened. They were not around when women did not have those rights. However, those rights that they take for granted are being slowly chipped away, and it’s being done subtly enough that it’s escaping the notice of anybody not paying close attention.
I don’t think that the Repubs are going to overturn Roe. Why not? Because that would mobilize the pro-choice movement, and would wake everybody else up. Instead, they’re just slowly allowing the individual states (your all-knowing, all-wise states) to place more and more restrictions on reproductive health. If a woman lives in a state where there are no abortion clinics, where no doctors or pharmacists or hospitals will provide the morning-after pill, and where her local pharmacists will not dispense the pill for religious reasons — well, Roe might as well be overturned, for all the good it’s currently doing her.
This is really happening, Brian. It’s not widespread yet, but will probably become more so if Republicans continue to control government and the Supreme Court is filled with right-wing idealogues. And you know what? The fact that it’s happening to ANY women in America is a sin and a shame.
Sojourner
You and your friends are incredibly naive. People from my generation who were around before Roe v Wade and have watched the religious right chip away at access know better.
It must be nice to be able to idly banter about an issue that will never directly affect you. Sorry… being married, having girl children, having female friends is in no way the same thing as being at risk of an unwanted pregnancy that could have profound implications for one’s health and future.
I seriously doubt that all of your female friends are being totally honest – unless they live on Planet Stormy.
Barbar
Problem: Abortion is overly politicized.
Solution: Grant 50 different state legislatures the ability to set the abortion laws, and to change them at any time.
Problem: You are a libertarian on abortion.
Solution: Overturn Roe v. Wade. Replace the woman’s right to choose with the more important state’s right to prevent her from choosing.
This is just willful stupidity.
Kristjan Wager
I will follow up Ancient Purple’s post about Illinois with an article link from october, 2004:
Thirty states ready to ban abortion if Roe overturned
So interesting numbers:
The high risk states:
A recent study shows similar results.
Anyone who doesn’t think that the states would ban abortions, have simply not been paying attention.
Brian
My wife and I raise our daughters from a position of strength, not weakness. We don’t instruct them on the outdated feminist narrative that states the majority of men are rapists, perverts, and sexual predators, and a subset of a larger patriarchal system that requires women to run to Mommy Government for solace and security.
There may be laws in certain states, but those laws can change. Right now, they don’t have to be. There are lots of outdated and socially unacceptable laws on the books that have long been forgotten until someone decides to re-address them for current life. Abortion is one of those subjects in places like Alabama. You don’t keep a bad law (Roe) in place to fix another bad law.
The feminist movement is about to undergo change. It’s matured, but many women want to stay in the feminism of the Seventies, constantly agitating against old demons, drumming up crackpot statistics, and demanding that the courts keep hold of subjects that civilians are perfectly capable of handling through the electoral process.
You say that I’m closed-minded, but it seems to me that it’s you that needs the open mind. To enable this, I’ll leave you with a few articles from women who have a decidedly different view from yours, and will hopefully show you that I’m not speaking my views based on some lunchtime chats with female friends, but a larger reading of where the women’s movement, and society, is headed. The choice to remain ignorant is yours.
From a conservative
From a libertarian
From a woman of unknown politics
Barbar
Holy cow. Brian doesn’t seem to even have the ability to comprehend my posts, as well as most of the other posts here, but he lectures other people about open-mindedness?
Brian, there are barely any abortion clinics now in Alabama, or South Dakota for that matter. And that’s with abortion legal. You think there are going to be more when Roe gets overturned? Get real.
And NO ONE HERE is making an argument that depends on assuming that the majority of men are rapists or perverts. This is a perfect example of a straw man. Once again, STOP LYING — since no one here is claiming that, it is dishonest to pretend that’s what you’re responding to.
Jeebus. You are either incredibly stupid or amazingly dishonest. I don’t know what would be worse. And if that hurts your feelings, then maybe you should try responding honestly to any of the hundred objections brought against your pathetic reasoning in this thread.
Barbar
And if you’re too confused to actually respond to anything I wrote before, just answer the following multiple-choice question.
As a liberatarian, I think it is more important for:
A) a woman to have the right to choose whether she has an abortion or not
B) elected politicians to have the right to prevent women from choosing to have an abortion
Thank you.
Brian
Barbar,
I have already answered this question, and I find your tone insulting and childish.
Your question is simplistic, by the way. Life is more complicated than you apparently believe it to be. You think it is proper for a handful of lawyers, bereft of any compelling precedent, and without competence in disciplines like medical technology, to impose their policy preferences on the American people, and thus insulate those policy preferences from the democratic process.
I trust the democratic process, and I trust the community of informed citizens to make rational decisions about tough subject like abortion.
Barbar
Brian, why can’t people make their own decisions, without any government intervention? You really call yourself a libertarian?
This is the twentieth time this objection has been raised in this thread, and you still haven’t answered it.
Nice dodge on the question, by the way. Too chicken to explicitly answer it? Which is more important, A or B? Hint: we have A if Roe is in effect, we have B if Roe is overturned. You want Roe to be overturned. Still too complex for you to answer?
Pathetic.
Barbar
And Brian, why don’t you push for a Constitutional Amendment that legalizes abortion? Wouldn’t this address all your concerns? Interesting.
Steve
Seriously, you could make the same case that the democratic process ought to be able to decide how many kids you’re allowed to have. Manhattan is pretty crowded, frankly, so I wouldn’t necessarily mind. Two kids per family, tops.
Do you trust the democratic process? Of course you do. There’s certainly nothing in the Constitution that says you have some “right” to have as many kids as you want if the government feels otherwise.
Lauren
I can’t believe all this came from a typo.